| spelling |
oapen-20.500.12657-895022024-04-05T02:23:26Z Supermajorities in Constitutional Courts Rivera Leon, Mauro Arturo Supermajorities;Constitutional Adjudication;Judicial Review;Counter-majoritarian difficulty;democratic deference thema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issues::LAB Methods, theory and philosophy of law thema EDItEUR::J Society and Social Sciences::JP Politics and government thema EDItEUR::L Law::LN Laws of specific jurisdictions and specific areas of law::LND Constitutional and administrative law: general thema EDItEUR::L Law::LA Jurisprudence and general issues::LAM Comparative law Constitutional adjudication is a subject of fascination for scholars. Judges may annul the will of a democratically elected Parliament in counter-majoritarian fashion. Although conceived as a remedy against majoritarianism, judges also decide cases by voting. Whether they do so through simple majorities or supermajorities is not trivial. The debate around supermajorities has awakened anew amidst theories of judicial limitation and new conceptions of judicial review. This book advances our knowledge of systems employing supermajorities in constitutional adjudication by performing a comparative analysis of ten jurisdictions and twelve supermajority models. It introduces a typology of the main models of institutional design, the reasons leading policymakers to establish them, and the impact supermajorities have on courts. It explores the question of whether supermajorities grant deference and foster consensus, or if they disable constitutional courts from exercising judicial review. By analyzing the history, practice, and effects of supermajority rules in courts, this book contributes to an ongoing conversation on the democratic implications of voting protocols in constitutional courts. It will be a valuable resource for policy-makers, scholars, and researchers working in the areas of comparative constitutional law and constitutional politics. The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license. 2024-04-04T09:06:50Z 2024-04-04T09:06:50Z 2024 book 9781040011232 9781003458272 9781032599694 https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/89502 eng application/pdf Attribution 4.0 International 9781040011195.pdf Taylor & Francis Routledge 10.4324/9781003458272 10.4324/9781003458272 7b3c7b10-5b1e-40b3-860e-c6dd5197f0bb 9781040011232 9781003458272 9781032599694 Routledge 256 open access
|
| description |
Constitutional adjudication is a subject of fascination for scholars. Judges may annul the will of a democratically elected Parliament in counter-majoritarian fashion. Although conceived as a remedy against majoritarianism, judges also decide cases by voting. Whether they do so through simple majorities or supermajorities is not trivial.
The debate around supermajorities has awakened anew amidst theories of judicial limitation and new conceptions of judicial review. This book advances our knowledge of systems employing supermajorities in constitutional adjudication by performing a comparative analysis of ten jurisdictions and twelve supermajority models. It introduces a typology of the main models of institutional design, the reasons leading policymakers to establish them, and the impact supermajorities have on courts. It explores the question of whether supermajorities grant deference and foster consensus, or if they disable constitutional courts from exercising judicial review. By analyzing the history, practice, and effects of supermajority rules in courts, this book contributes to an ongoing conversation on the democratic implications of voting protocols in constitutional courts. It will be a valuable resource for policy-makers, scholars, and researchers working in the areas of comparative constitutional law and constitutional politics.
The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
|
